GOP Goes Public With Long-Brewing Foreign Policy Civil War

For years the Republican Party has fractured over foreign policy, but libertarians and neoconservatives, while vehemently disagreeing on substance, tried to project an air of party cohesion. Those days are over.

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie announces to a gathering Monday, July 22, 2013, in Brick Township, N.J., that about 2,700 New Jersey homeowners will get federal grants to elevate homes damaged by Superstorm Sandy. Homeowners will be able to get up to $30,000 each.

For years the Republican Party has fractured over foreign policy, but libertarians and neoconservatives, while vehemently disagreeing on substance, tried to project an air of party cohesion. Those days are over. “We ignored them and then tried to placate them,” said one hawkish Senate Republican foreign policy aide about the libertarians. “If we don’t move now [to counterattack], it may be too late in 2016.”

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie’s comments Thursday evening at a gathering of the Republican Governors Association in Aspen, Colo. calling libertarianism “a very dangerous thought” marked an opening salvo of the fight for the Republican Party’s identity in an age where a war-weary public wants to focus on the home front. On one side are libertarians like Sen. Rand Paul and others in the Tea Party. On the other, more mainstream conservatives like Christie, Arizona Sen. John McCain and New York Rep. Pete King.

It wasn’t always this way. For years, as the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan divided the American public and drove a wedge into the GOP, national Republicans largely ignored the rising libertarian movement. When Paul’s father, former Rep. Ron Paul, ran for president in 2008 and 2012, he was often treated as a sideshow — commanding a fraction of the GOP primary electorate and being unable to drive the national conversation from the fringes of primary debates. And indeed Republicans never seriously addressed the rise of libertarianism within the Tea Party on a national level, as Mitt Romney struggled to connect with that segment of the electorate.

When the younger Paul took to the floor of the Senate in March for a 13-hour filibuster on drone policies, mainstream Republicans tried appeasement. Paul had the backing of fourteen colleagues, including Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. RNC Chairman Reince Priebus encouraged the entire party to rise and support his efforts. Only a few of the most ardent security hawks, like Sen. John McCain of Arizona, raised concerns as Paul temporarily blocked the nomination of Obama’s pick for CIA director, John Brennan, over the administration’s refusal to describe its drone policies to the public.

In many ways, the Republican Party is more fractured today than it was when Mitt Romney lost in November. But the severity of Christie’s comments — coming on the heels of a contentious House vote on funding for the National Security Agency’s controversial spying programs — marks a new era of intra-party turmoil.

Asked by New York Times reporter Jonathan Martin about the vote, Christie, a former federal prosecutor, invoked the memory of the attacks of September 11, 2011. “I want them to come to New Jersey and sit across from the widows and the orphans and have that conversation,” he said, specifically including Paul when prodded.

“It’s not a debate not worth having,” Christie continued, “but I think we need to be very cautious about how joyful we are over the idea that somehow we are going to shift this baby way back. Because the next attack that comes, that kills thousands of Americans as a result, people are going to be looking back on the people having this intellectual debate.”

Democrats are hardly immune from the divisions between privacy activists and national security hawks, but don’t face nearly the same divisions as Republicans. That the National Security Agency bill, opposed by Speaker of the House John Boehner and Majority Leader Eric Cantor, even made it to the floor is a testament to how powerful the libertarian caucus has become. GOP House members split 94-134 against cutting funding for the NSA programs as the amendment, offered by Republican Rep. Justin Amash, failed 217-205.

While there is no coordinated effort to try to counteract the growing influence of the libertarians in the GOP, opponents have turned up the volume on their critiques. McCain has relentlessly assailed Paul’s ideology over the past several months in strikingly personal terms, calling Paul and Sen. Ted Cruz “wacko birds,” before apologizing.

With Paul and Christie sharing aspirations for a run for the White House, this struggle previews the 2016 debates. “Christie’s confronting what he sees as an esoteric and philosophical approach to policy formulation with one more rooted in action instead of ideologue,” said former Romney aide Kevin Madden. “Depending on how the 2016 field fills out, you’re likely to see the debates and party battles break more along these lines. The legislators and the executives. The thinkers and the doers.”

Picking a fight with libertarians also provides a dose of conservative redemption for the governor, who has come under criticism from Republicans for his outspoken gratitude toward Obama for federal assistance after Hurricane Sandy and his equally sharp words for GOP lawmakers for delaying disaster relief. “It’s a great fight for Christie,” said former Bush strategist Mark McKinnon. “It allows him to move right and take on Paul who will likely be leading in the early primary states of Iowa and New Hampshire.”

But Christie advisor Michael DuHaime downplayed the significance of the comments. “I would suggest people not to overanalyze it,” he told TIME. “He was asked a question on NSA and answered it. He was US Attorney in NJ for seven years, and he has more direct experience with terrorism than just about everyone engaged in this debate. He got a question and answered it.”

But the movement is larger than Christie and McCain. Last week King, the former House intelligence committee chairman and one of the House’s toughest national security hawks, floated the notion that he would run for president. Such a candidacy by the lawmaker unknown outside of Long Island and Washington would likely be focused on pushing back against the libertarian ideology than winning delegates.

Liz Mair, a Republican consultant, said in the wake of Christie’s comments Thursday, “I feel like he’s giving me little reason to keep looking at the likely moderate in what I assume will be the 2016 field.”

The Russians used Marx to set up a thug government, just as Christendom used Jesus in Europe, just as the Athenians used Democritus. USA? Hard to say. Most of us are too proud to take socialism seriously and too cowardly to challenge the church industry. Maybe, for the first time in human history, the truly enlightened Libertarians will stop patting themselves on the back and put that energy into building a party full of the reasonable 75% of us that don't want a lazy person stealing our money OR a crazy person speaking on behalf of God. They better hurry before the hippies remember how to appeal to people with something to lose.

Republican Imperialism looks exactly like Democrat Imperialism. Both
parties love war, and spreading the gospel of Democracy with a rifle or
cruise missile. Promoting peace and trade around the world is foreign to
them, unless they are trying sale more fighter jets, tanks, and bullets.
Freedom and liberty are catch phrases they bat around when they're
ginning up the sales pitch to invade or occupy their next target. Partisans
get all lathered up and wrap themselves in the flag as we send our
bravest and finest into another useless war for the Military Industrial
Complex. Syria looms on the horizon as both parties are gearing up for
what will be their never ending quest for blood.

Why is any one of our 50 Governor's even involved in this conversation? Especially a Republican conversation by a Governor of New Jersey for crying out loud? New Jersey is insular territory that has zero to do with National Politics so GOP, I'd suggest you thank Mr. Christie for his opinion as a Governor then move on so Mr. Christie can continue to focus on his failing State. Don't even humor yourselves thinking Mr. Christie is going to be President. As usual the Pug Establishment can select and run any failed leader they want to, i.e. McCain, Romney, et al. in the General but will lose again as usual.

To the Republican Establishment; You actually bring Governor Christie here to do your national bidding? If so you've lost already as this is nothing but confirmation that the GOP party, the one I've been a contributing member of for 30 years and the party I'm about to dispatch is in sad, sad shape and getting worse. You Pug Establishment folks look around. Take a look at the failure after failure you have created or allowed to be created by the left yet you GOP folks continue to tell us how it's gonna be? Not a chance as we showed you in 2011 when 7.3M of us stayed home.

I'd rather stick needles in my eyes than to continue to allow the Republican Establishment leadership fail us over and over again. Not gonna happen and its equally hilarious you establishment folks have to use this lowly Governor to make a point.

Smarten up GOP or switch your party credentials to that of being a diapered liberal. Or contend with a 3rd party that will eat your lunch which is my option. Using Christie here tells me you're too far gone.

And in other news, Rand Paul votes for Kentucky subsidies for tobacco farmers in Kentucky. He also voted to continue to pay farmers not to grow tobacco , which is a huge source of fed handouts to Kentucky politicians and citizens alike.---

"Senate votes down proposal to end tobacco crop insurance subsidy

The U.S. Senate voted 52-44 Thursday afternoon to kill an amendment to the Farm Bill that would have eliminated federal crop insurance subsidies for tobacco.

"This is a big victory for Kentucky's tobacco growers and their families. I was happy to lead the fight to protect our farmers from another assault by Washington to go after our home state jobs," said Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Louisville, in a statement afterward.

Both McConnell and Sen. Rand Paul, R-Bowling Green, voted against the amendment.

Absolutely love Time Magazine's latest attempt to portray the GOP as, 'coming apart at the seams.'

Seriously, the writers and editors at TIME must have wet dreams over how negatively (and inaccurately) they can portray Republicans. Any mere molehill of a scandal suddenly explodes into a mountain of 'OMG!!!'

Additionally, the attempt to add 'balance' to the story (i.e. "Democrats are hardly immune from the divisions between privacy activists and national security hawks, but don’t face nearly the same divisions as Republicans.") just comes off as limp. TIME knows quite well that divisions exist over healthcare, unions, immigration, surveillance, etc.. But, of course, readers will never hear that from TIME.

This latest ejaculation from TIME demonstrates just how desperate they are to drum up scandal where there is none. With the article's title in mind, the rest of the article (to quote an old classmate) is, "an orgasmic let-down."

Neocons will have to go back to the democrat party. Imperialism is not conservative. The only ones who want a one world government are socialists who belong in the democrat party. The only ones who want a 'strong' (unaccountable) federal government are socialists. Neocons won't admit they are just as socialist as the democrats. This is about Marx vs Jefferson. Americans deserve to have one party representing Jefferson and the traditional limited government pro liberty values of this nation. I welcome this fight. I don't care if it means us real conservatives lose and must start a third party. At least we will finally be represented. At least we will be able to present to Americans what real conservative (classically liberal) ideas are, and give them an honest choice.

We can expect a high level of nastiness from the neocons. They are militarists who see politics as war by other means.They will not peacefully permit those they regard as peace-loving fools stand in their way. They will rely heavily upon scare tactics although much of their motivation actually stems from a desire to bask in the reflected glory of a mighty empire. Their cravings for personal and national power are a greater threat to our lives and liberty than any foreign aggressor.

rofl. The establishment RINO hacks like McShame and Co. represent nobody but the same people behind Obummer, yet still the lame establishment media keeps reporting on them as if they had any sort of following in the real world. Liberty will be the GOP's future, or the GOP will fade into irrelevance and something new will arise. Either way, liberty will be restored.

Libertarianism indeed is mostly goofy and unrealistic, but it's raising profound questions that we need o think about with more than this kind of smarmy dismissiveness.

Oh, I forgot, he wants to be president, and he will get nowhere challenging the powers that own us and direct american foreign policy. What? You thought the Constitution actually means what it says? You gonna be flapping your jaws about that intellectual stuff when several thousand Americans are killed in some anticipated horror?

Hey, morons, we had to destroy freedom in order to save it. The NSA has your number. buckaroo!

Just to save this from being all polemic, here are some questions our "leaders" ought to be asking -- at least themselves.

"The 1953 Iranian coup d'état (known in Iran as the 28 Mordad coup was the overthrow of the democratically elected government of Iran, and its head of government Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh on 19 August 1953, orchestrated by the United Kingdom (under the name 'Operation Boot') and the United States (under the name TPAJAX Project).The coup saw the formation of a military government under Mohammad-Rezā Shāh Pahlavi, who progressed from a constitutional monarch to an authoritarian one who relied heavily on United States support to hold on to power until his own overthrow in February 1979."

it was for the oil. How noble!

Ya think Americans would resent a country that had George Washington killed and replaced by a stooge? Ya think?

How about all those weapons we delivered to our "ally" Israel. Ya think the relatives of all those Egyptians and Syrians killed by those weapons might bear a grudge? Or those Palestinians who get hit with rockets fired from American-supplied helicopter gunships?

No, of course not -- they are jealous of our McDonalds burgers.

Maybe some people out there, them Mooslims, are honked off because when we invade Iraq, we invaded the WRONG COUNTRY, based on the lie that they had nuclear weapons. You know, like the non-existent nuclear weapons of Iran, that we may use as an excuse to attack them? And why would Iran even think about nukes? Please pay no attention to the hundreds of nukes Israel has deployed in a very volatile region.

No, Christie won't ask these questions. Because he wants to be president, and who gets that chance is determined by money.

You're either rich, or you do the bidding of the rich. And the rich want their global interests defended.

The GOP will never learn. They danced with the evangelicals and the evangelicals wound up calling the shots. They danced with the Tea Party and the Tea Party started calling the shots. Now they're regretting not nipping the libertarian faction in the bud while they had the chance to limit the damage. They're so myopic that they can't see what's in front of them.

Speaking of whether Rand Paul should be called a libertarian and tossed in with them per this GOP debate...

"They thought all along that they could call me a libertarian and hang that label around my neck like an albatross, but I'm not a libertarian," Paul says between Lasik surgeries at his medical office, where his campaign is headquartered, with a few desks crammed between treatment rooms.

"On one side are libertarians like Sen. Rand Paul and others in the Tea Party."

Here we go again. Rand Paul is NOT a libertarian. Proof? Start with his highly intrusive position on abortion, and he's no fan of gay marriage either, QED. And do his fellow Tea Partiers support or oppose similar government intrusions into individuals' lives? Look at his drug policies too. If you want a libertarian position, interview Gary Johnson. He's the real deal. Many people, including commenters here, embrace some libertarian positions, but Rand Paul does not embrace the entire package. Call him and his minions Tea Partiers, teavangelicals, fake libertarians, glibertarians, etc., but not this. Why do we have to keep reminding reporters of this (especially the ones who work here)?

Perhaps a more pertinent concern that Christie's comment raises may be aptly summarized as follows: in an era of unpredictable "super-storms", dirty bombs and Corporate interests that deem themselves to be "above the law" (see, e.g., documentary "Gasland"), is the Libertarian ideology actually a prudent policy for the People when juxtaposed against the foreseeable NEED of the State to respond to exigent circumstances?

Taken to its illogical conclusion, the Libertarian ideology provides a pretext for the GOP to implement a pro-Big Business, "free market" economic agenda, i.e., notwithstanding the lessons of History when Commerce is allowed to "police itself" (see, e.g., credit default swaps and Wall St. meltdown).

The State and People are two parties to a Social Contract. The special interest puppeteer of the modern GOP is trying to condition the People that, in fact, they should "renegotiate" the Social Contract without any real consideration. Namely, the GOP wants the People to "excuse" the State's performance in terms of ensuring the basic essentials that further the People's life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Whether it is ensuring the provision of clean water, public education, public safety, national security, et al.- the People's elected officials should be focusing less on trying to starve itself of revenue (see, e.g., "no new taxes" lobbyist agenda) and more on becoming more efficient delivering these performances.

In short, the People deserve to have elected officials actually lobbying for their interests. The modern GOP is trying to "contract away" the People's rights and remedies for no consideration to the People at all. Worse still, the modern GOP simply pays lip service to fiscal prudence as it unapologetically diverts US taxpayer funds to futilely enforce a Police Power over Arab sovereigns.

The People deserve a strong State willing to enforce regulatory laws enacted to protect the People's freedoms.

Stop patting yourselves on the back for not being dem/repub and build a viable third party. No one cares about the news, much less the news' comments section. The green party is filthy with hippies, but the Libertarians keep endorsing repubs. I need to stop talking to myself in a room full of people talking to themselves and calling it a movement. I don't know how to get the ear of a powerful enough person to make a viable third party, but that's where my effort should be focused, mine and yours.

@ZJSimon Libertarianism has worked exactly no place on earth. It's a delusional notion that one can do pretty much whatever one likes, ignoring the reality that if you make a right turn when I make a left turn, it would be nice if we had a government that installed traffic signals. Today's libertarianism is anti-itch cream for people who feel put upon by a changing world. Paul occasionally makes sense because yes, government does do stupid things from time to time. But then, so does business. If we let one have it all their way, that's when the real trouble begins.

That's funny, because your shallow critique of Time Magazine does not really ameliorate the absolute necessity of holding the "Libertarian Revolution" face to face. All these purported "factions" within the GOP are simply different puppeteer strings criss-crossing each other...."no new taxes, ever" is our oath, Our Ford..."deregulation" our Mother.

Unlike you apparently, I have very grave concerns that when the GOP leaders like Boehner seems to want to measure themselves by "gutting" the Legislation their campaign contributors do not prefer...my attention is more focused on harm to the Earth, the tremendous opportunity for job growth in renewable energy, the need fro new Stimulus...and, of course, the present and future value of healthy aquifers.

So,what of the contaminated ground water in the Inland Empire,
such disregard for the Earth a literal spectacle: how can anyone burden our depleted water with
additional “fracking” chemicals? Our remedies are as depleted as the actual
pipes, not to mention the woefully inadequate and intrinsically flawed CERLA
scheme [think: No Child Left Behind, i.e., the only way to recover damages to
property via CERCLA is to incur them by remediation yourself and there simply
is no cost-efficient means to remove, say, TCE, PCE and Benzene agents from the
aquifer.]

But back to the (ahem) “lack of balance” in the article. After Reagan “gutted” the Fairness Act, what
should you expect or does “paid-for-editorial-news” at Fox lack?

Hmm, with all this talk about CA’s consumer protections
under unfounded attack, gee, it’s like a TV show, but really, what happens when
"fracking" outside Los Angeles goes horribly awry- that is, assume
arguendo, due to whatever reason, third-party negligence or Act of God.

Tell me, how does the foreseeable risk of the materially interfering
with the San Andreas fault (e.g., the foreseeable
commercial/residential/office/industrial property damage) or other areas in the
US, coupled with the likely degradation of part or potentially large swaths of
tens of millions of citizens' need for potable, safe, fresh water- not vastly
outweigh the purported benefit of "fracking" to begin with?

We get it. There is an alleged “Saudi Arabia” of natural gas
under the US.

Tell me, what good is wresting the energy therein if it
kills us?

So, come correct- certain factions within the GOP- sees the
Several States as one giant "fracking" field that can be purchased
“back” with the threat of litigation, deliberate obfuscation…when, in reality,
the People need the Executive branch to engage in post hoc regulation.

There is no real urgent reason to "tap" that natural
gas energy when it simply exacerbates our climate change problems and, most
egregiously, (1) uses up far too much fresh water in harvesting the gas and (2)
then the methane, et al., will unequivocally defile (read: kill local life,
flora and fauna) if the pipes break which, given you are simulating earthquakes
and playing God with other people's farms, homes, and lives being transmuted
into uninhabitable methane fields...

More productive uses from the land can other private
development yield.

Dear Louisiana: maybe the Several States needs to intervene
before the Federal government’s regulatory approval thus far constitutes a
separate, "regulatory" taking.Bad facts make bad law: a failure to lead by the Several
States in the making.

Watch the documentary 'Gasland'. These poor, law-abiding property-owing Americans in TX, PA,
CO, AL, WY, et al., are getting driven off their land as unapologetically as by
Columbus' hand.

Once the land is ruined, it is gone like the Indians of the
Plains, that tries to warn us now- yet again with whispers inside of the ear-
and not in vain.

@united_we_stand Now, you see your post is why libertarians are dangerous. They're psychotic. They don't live in the same reality as the rest of us. They think they're being "responsible" when they're only being egotistical and selfish. They think "liberty" is telling other people what to do and making them do it. They don't accept the tenants of democracy at all. If they don't get their way, they whine, then they grab their guns.

This is why I call them the single greatest threat to the safety and security of the United States. I've said that ever since I read Ron Paul's positions.

You don't want CHOICE, we. You want it all YOUR WAY. If you wanted CHOICE, you'd be willing to accept the demands of the majority. And you're not.

@tfdrumm, that's an excellent point. I think that too many "libertarians" today have latched onto the idea of libertarianism just because they don't want to pay taxes. They don't even consider how much they depend on the very services they take for granted.

@eagle11772 What this country needs is another republican president who will start 2 wars that will end up costing 10 trillion dollars. Remove all regulations on Wall Street that will bankrupt the country. And give big tax breaks to the super rich who will move that money offshore.

Bottom line: Pres Obama submitted his budget to Congress 6 months ago. Republicans have no budget and have done nothing for 4 1/2 years.

Libertarians believe in "limited government", not anarchy. We follow the rules just like everyone else. The Framers of the Constitution feared a strong central government, and those fears have come to fruition. Our rights and individual liberties have been stripped away under the cloak of security. The older generation depends on the government for their daily lives because they believed that Social Security was their golden parachute, and Medicare was their god given right, regardless of costs to their neighbors. So spare me the b.s., and just say thank you when you get your government check in the mail.

@roknsteve@amadeus8888 I think it depends on how well they do in the next couple of elections. If they start to loose ground, then half the party will want to moderate more, forcing the other half to either moderate as well, or split to another party.

I think a 3rd party would do the country a lot of good. It would free many left leaning republicans to join with democrats to get some things done, along with many libertarians to join with libertarian minded democrats to get other things done.

However, i don't think it will last. Eventually the right will get tired of loosing and join the 2 parties together again.

@sacredh@tfdrumm I tend to think it's less about them paying taxes in general, than it is that they only want to pay taxes for endeavors that go toward killing people and not pay taxes that go to helping people.

@sacredh@eagle11772 OT J.J. Cale passed away yesterday. "Crazy Mama", "After Midnight", "They Call Me the Breeze" are just a few of the song he wrote and were covered by other artists. One of my favorites is "Cajun Moon".

Presumably it would be illegal for the gas driller to poison the ground of his neighbor without permission. How do you prove it was him though? What is the burden of proof? Certainly gas companies have the resources to produce enough evidence that it wasn't them that poisoned the ground as to make it a reasonable doubt. Is it up to the prosecuting attorney to produce countering evidence? How expensive would that be? They want to cut the EPA? It sounds like you would have to replace the EPA with an arm of the attorney's office that is significantly larger and does basically the same thing.

Do you deny that a certain degree of regulation is required to assure your freedom to pursue your own interests on your own property? That's the true librertarian ideal isn't it?

So, let's say that you wish to raise cattle on your own land. Libertarians would rightly say that it is not the government's business to intrude. Say that your neighbor wants to drill for gas on his land, and has inadvertantly poisoned the water table by not following government guidelines for it (he's libertarian too).

So, your neighbor has the freedom to do as he sees fit, as do you. But now, you cannot raise cattle on your own land due to poisoned wells and ponds. Are you still free to pursue your personal interests?

Libertarianism presumes that each person's exercise of their own free-will has no effect on their community. Libertarians also forget that shared infrastructure (roads, bridges, electrical grid) didn't spring from the ground. If you want to be a true libertarian, swim to an island and knock yourself out. Otherwise, we're stuck with each-other and our common interests.